Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: marshmallow

Any business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. PERIOD.


3 posted on 06/05/2012 7:23:52 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: cripplecreek

It was considered more important to derail racial prejudice than to respect the right of freedom of association (or non-association). Now we’re where we are today, with people forced to associate or not, do business or not, based on whatever the government tells them they should do today.


15 posted on 06/05/2012 7:33:38 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Make sure you notice when I'm being subtly ironic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

What about blacks? Can you refuse services because you just don’t like them? You said anyone for any reason after all


17 posted on 06/05/2012 7:34:44 AM PDT by strider44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

But you must reserve your rights.

UCC 1-308


How the UCC 1-308 works

. Compare that the constitution for the US establishes for the court’s jurisdiction at common law, equity and admiralty under article 3. As opposed to this, the Federal corporation establishes a similar jurisdiction except as principles under the Uniform commercial code. See... UCC § 1-103. Supplementary General Principles of Law Applicable. Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Act, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchantand the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, Bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

Anytime ya see law by itself as in the foregoing, it means the common law. Except that they are taking the common law jurisdiction from the contract the UCC. The remedy of course is UCC 1-308. So the UCC is a deceptive criminal contractual constitution of sorts to those who uses it against us.

UCC 1-308 is the remedy for any legal process under commercial law in the U.S.
.
UCC § 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.
.
Since the Federal Corporation is just that, a corporation. It has no jurisdiction except with those that contract with it. Also see Congressional act of 1871 and USC Title 28, Part VI, chapter 176, sub chapter 176, subsection A, 3002 (15) “United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;
The states illegally contracted with the federal corporation by passing the Uniform Commercial Code making themselves as well as the unsuspecting people subject to the Federal corporation and also to the states in their new commercial capacities.

• The Uniform Commercial code creates a corporate State of the United States,the federal corporation. As opposed to one of the dejure several States of the union.

See… UCC 1-201. General Definitions.(38) “State” means a State of the United States,…
As opposed to being one of the several states of the union…
USC TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States,…

• Because the states have passed the Uniform Commercial code, it has made its Citizens persons (which are legal entities and articles of commerce) and the State to be vesselsof the United States placing the State and its Citizens under maritime law. See the brilliant word smithing in the following.

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 9. Vessel of the United States defined
The term “vessel of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

Therefore all of the laws (color of law) are contractual commercial laws and the remedy is UCC 1-308. The Uniform Commercial Code makes all crimes commercial only by contract as per 27 CFR 72.11. The problem is that you have to get into higher courts before they will recognize the remedy. The remedy however should legally and always be give without delay on demand or claim. This of course is the problem. The misdemeanor courts do not have a clue as to where their jurisdiction comes from and neither do magistrates. You have to get in front of a court with a real judge that tries felonies. The courts try to string ya along under duress of threat hoping that you can be scared into a plea. But they in the end have to honor the remedy.
.
27 CFR 72.11 PART 72_DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY—Table of Contents

Subpart B_Definitions Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

Last note: The 14th amendment actually creates a lower class of “citizen of the United States” rather than the higher Citizenship of one of the several states of the union. The remedy provided to the 14th amendment, is an act by congress known as 15 United States Statute at Large, July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment took effect and also known as the “Expatriation Statute.” This is your remedy to claim to be a natural Citizen of your state. This makes you a higher Citizen and no longer subject to the Article 4 loophole that also deprives you of your rights.


The District of Columbia Act of 1871What did it do?

Initial review of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 seems like it only sets up a local government (like Chicago or Seattle); how do you get that they formed a private corporation? If you take the Act out of its historical context and, from the present looking to the past, imagine who the parties involved are, we might agree. However, by doing that you will never understand what happened; therefore, to best understand what really happened we follow our:

Standard for Review
Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:First understand who the parties are; Always know yourself first Discover the true nature of all other parties second

Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship; and,
Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.

Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; therefore, review such details in accord with Rule 1 as well.

Thus, to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, we must first understand who the parties are involved in the relationship described by the Act. We are not here going to delve into the Act in its entirety, suffice it to say, looking over the situation we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction Congress, set by the Constitution for the United States of America. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (Sept. 17, 1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government, that is to say, the “territory” includes the actual government. Under the Act Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed. Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The popular names for this “Charter Act” are the, “District of Columbia Organization Act” and the “District of Columbia Act “, which Act the Supreme Court has recognized was the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”. Then on March 3, 1801 a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being Maryland and Virginia, respectively.

According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the official incorporation of the formal municipal government of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision. Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued. Since 1801 The District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a “municipal corporation” with its own government.

That sets the basics for the first rule of our Standard for Review, know the parties. What we have presented is sufficient to show the basics of who the parties are as they related to resolving the answer to the question above. We admonish everyone to prove the facts for themselves by their own research.

The second rule from our Standard for Review is: “Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship.” With that in mind let’s consider the events of the time: the Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act (Martial Law). Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land: they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union, which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members. There were other problems but these three stand out from the rest. That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review, however the more you study the historical events of this time the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened. In the interest of time and space in this response we will move on.

The last step of the Standard for Review’s discovery process requires a review of the actual terms of the relationship. Thus, we review the first paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which follows:

Congress wrote:That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation

Knowing the government of the District of Columbia was already “created into a government” and so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 60 years? The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!” There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act. Even Congress cannot change history; though historians can make it appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the records. The records speak for themselves only if we study them.

When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (and that which follows) is, the “municipal corporation” that was created is a private corporation owned by the existent municipality. And the only government created in that Act was the same government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct. Thus, we call it Corp. U.S. We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in the Constitution, to complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers. Thus, Congress can use it within the ten mile square as they see fit to both govern the municipality as if it were the municipal government and to use it to do things the Constitution did not grant them the privilege of doing.

http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology-CorpUS.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkauG6qE8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzmUuKd6ucM&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpMMnJWExNU&feature=relmfu


48 posted on 06/05/2012 8:14:10 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

This will be overturned. The Constitution trumps this Marxist judge if religious liberty and free speech have not seen white-out in the great document.

To decline to lend your services IS speech.


67 posted on 06/05/2012 9:15:39 AM PDT by RitaOK (No Romney! Few are unafraid, but I thank God for the few. We are the resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

We used to have that right. Political correctness seems to have trumped it.

Businesses should inundate the courts with lawsuits over this basic business right - to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

It started with the landlords who were forced to rent to anyone, MS-13, prostitutes, destructive tenants, drug dealers, people with children in a senior building, etc.

And it went on from there.

Bastids.


84 posted on 06/05/2012 5:32:00 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson